Citation

Kloeden CN, Hutchinson TP. CASR Rep. Ser. 2006; 2006(CASR-022).

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Centre for Automotive Safety Research, University of Adelaide)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This report compares the crash and driving offence experience of two groups of offending drivers: those attending the Driver Intervention Program (DIP, a small-group workshop for disqualified L- or P-plate drivers), and those who could have attended the DIP but chose not to and paid an expiation fee instead; both before and after they became eligible for the DIP. Concerning crashes, the DIP group did not have a statistically significantly different rate from the Expiation group. Concerning moving offences (such as speeding), the DIP group had a statistically significantly lower rate than the Expiation group. Concerning administrative offences (such as driving without a licence), the DIP group had a statistically significant and much lower rate than the Expiation group. The fact that drivers themselves chose whether to attend the DIP or pay an expiation fee means that any differences found could not be ascribed solely to the DIP: pre-existing differences in the sex, age and offending rates were found. No comment could be made on the effect of the DIP on offences. It does seem unlikely that the DIP results in a large reduction in crash rate among its attendees. However, given that the DIP is a cheap measure and that the current study could not show that it is not having an effect large enough to justify this small cost, there is no reason in this study for its discontinuation. In the Discussion a true randomised experiment is described that would, if conducted, be expected to detect if the DIP program has a substantial impact.